Brian Mitchell, et al v. Citimortgage

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND REMANDING ACTION TO THE TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (Doc. No. 19)

This is a mortgage case that was removed by Defendant Citimortgage ("Citi") from the Tulare County Superior Court. Currently set for hearing on December 17, 2012, is Citi's motion to dismiss. After further review, no hearing is necessary to resolve the matter.

A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a case through diversity jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and there is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The diversity of citizenship must be complete, that is, "each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendant." Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). However, the court "must disregard nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of real parties to the controversies." Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 461 (1980); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, when a case is removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and the complaint is ambiguous as to the amount in controversy, the proponent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1998). The proponent must actually provide evidence that establishes that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699; Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404.

Discussion

In this case, Citi contends that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction. Citi contends that it is a citizen of New York and
Missouri and that Plaintiffs are citizens of California. See Doc. No.
1 at ¶ 4. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Quality Loan Services
("QLS") is a California corporation. See Complaint at ¶ 4. Citing
Hafiz v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc. , 652
F.Supp.2d 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2009), Citi contends that the
citizenship of QLS may be ignored because QLS is only a substitute
trustee and thus, is a nominal party. The Court disagrees.

In Hafiz , QLS had filed in the state court a
declaration of non-monetary status under California Civil Code §
2924 l , and the plaintiffs had not objected to that
declaration. See Hafiz, 652 F.Supp.2d at 1052. The
Hafiz court held, "[w]hen a trustee under a deed of
trust files a declaration of non-monetary status, the party is
transformed into a 'nominal' party, thus excusing it from
participating in the action." Id. However, courts have distinguished
Hafiz where the requirements of § 2924
l have not been followed. When a trustee has not
completed the requirements of § 2924 l , courts have
held that the trustee is not a nominal party and have remanded the
removed cases back to state court. E.g. Camino v. America's Servicing
Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73376 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2012); Silva v.
Wells Fargo Bank NA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64636 (C.D. Cal. June 16,
2011); Wise v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44430
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011).

Here, the notice of removal states that QLS had not yet been served with Plaintiffs' complaint at the time of removal. See Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 4. Further, the only documents attached to the notice of removal were a copy of Plaintiffs' complaint and documents associated with a motion for a restraining order (including declarations). There is absolutely no indication that QLS has attempted to comply with Civil Code § 2924 l. Thus, Citi has failed to establish that QLS is a nominal party or that compete diversity between the parties exists. *fn1

Conclusion

Given the absence of any indication that QLS complied with § 2924 l , and the strong presumption against jurisdiction, the Court must resolve its doubts against jurisdiction. See Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1107; Gaus, 980 F.2d 564, 566 In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, this case must be remanded to the Tulare County Superior Court. See Bruns, 122 F.3d at 1257; Page, 45 F.3d at 133.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The December 17, 2012, hearing date is VACATED;

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this matter is REMANDED forthwith to the Tulare ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.